Saurian

Saturday, 24 January 2015

Tyrannosaurids are best known from the Late Cretaceous
deposits of North America and Asia and, it is fair to say, that we have a very
reasonable fossil dataset from both continents. And it is also worth
reiterating that our understanding of tyrannosaurid paleobiology and phylogeny
is one of the fastest moving disciplines in palaeontology. This should surprise
nobody as they are amongst the most interesting and impressive of all dinosaurs
and, as such, will always inspire a fervent following – myself included.

In recent years we have seen the arrival of new
tyrannosaurids such as Teratophoneus,
Bistahieversor, Lythronax, Nanuqsaurus
and Zhuchengtyrannus - and there are
more to come. For instance we already know that there is a second species of Daspletosaurus inthe pipeline for publication (Carr & Varricchio 2014) which I
will, obviously, blog about in due course and there are one or two other
surprises coming in the future as well. Even the relatively unknown Alioramus has undergone an extensive
redescription recently due to new fossils being found (eg Brusatte et al 2009, Brusatte et al 2012, and Lü et al 2014) and we have a much greater understanding of the so
called “narrow snouts” than we ever
did.

So we appear to know a lot about them but, in real terms, we
still understand very little and interpretation of the fossils is often subject
to debate. Tyrannosaurids of all taxa are actually very similar animals and, to
be fair to all the palaeontologists concerned, it is easy to see why there are
so many discussions when so many of the anatomical details are often slight.
One man’s new taxon is another man’s different ontogentic stage of a current
taxon. Morphological change throughout ontogeny is, without a doubt, the
biggest single determining factor in dinosaur phylogeny.

The origins of Tyrannosauridae and its distribution is also
a matter of contention - some people prefer an Asian origin whilst others, by
way of example, now favour a radiation that evolved in southern Laramidia. I
favour neither nor disregard either and I believe that it is fair to say that
there were obviously multiple migration events with taxa of different groups from both Asia and North America
moving back and forth across Beringia which, unsurprisingly, may also give strange
or false phylogenetic signals on occasion.

The earliest true tyrannosaurid is undoubtedly yet still to
be discovered and we do not have the best dinosaurian fossil record beyond the
Campanian and it would be terrific if there were fossils to be found in the
Santonian and probably the Coniacian too – but where would be anyone’s guess.

So with all of this in mind it seems that, despite the
relative wealth of fossil material that we have of tyrannosaurids, we are in
need of a hell of a lot more to increase the dataset. So it can cause
consternation amongst palaeontologists’ when what may be important specimens to
science are sold off at auction. Thomas Carr recently highlighted a number of Tyrannosaurus specimens that are held in
private hands and, as such, are off limits to professional researchers.

This is unfortunate. There are many who would say that since
there are multiple specimens of Tyrannosaurus
already in institutions then what is the point of having more? Without
increasing the aforementioned dataset then we will continue to have large gaps
in our knowledge and never be able to fully understand the paleobiology,
morphology and ontogeny of these majestic creatures.

And just to amplify how important it is to have a large
sample we need look no further than by using another Hell Creek giant, Triceratops, as an example. There are
hundreds of skulls of this animal – hundreds!
In fact nobody is really sure just how many there are but when compared
with good skulls of Tyrannosaurus
(perhaps 20?) then it is amazing that there is still debate regarding the
amount of Triceratops species there
are, whether Torosaurus is the adult
morph of Triceratops and, indeed, the
amazing morphological change that is displayed throughout ontogeny. Indeed, this is just as applicable to other
ceratopsians as well.

Hadrosaurs are another extremely well known group and,
although there are many interpretations of their fossils, they do not appear to
induce the often emotional discourse that follows tyrannosaurids and, to a
lesser degree, ceratopsians. And we have not even got to the world of
dromaeosaurids and troodontids for which there is a dearth of GOOD fossils but
no shortage of opinion and speculation.

Therefore tyrannosaurid specimens are important – all of
them and, as we can see, this relates to all clades of dinosaurs as well. So
when I learnt that a rather stunning tyrannosaurid maxilla and premaxilla from
the Republic of Kazakhstan had come to the surface I became rather excited.
There is a diverse fauna of Cretaceous dinosaurs that are recognised from the
ex-soviet republic including Hadrosauridae, Ankylosauridae, Sauropoda and
Tyrannosauridae amongst others.

Some remains can be locally abundant – hadrosaurs in
particular whilst others are known from rather scrappy and indeterminate
remains. Averianov et al (2012) reported on a right dentary from an unspecified
tyrannosaurine that was recovered from Late Cretaceous rocks in Kara-Cheku
which is located in Almaty Province. This was collected back in 1950 and
labelled as belonging to Tyrannosaurus
sp. – actually delightfully labelled as “Tirannosaurus”.

Without decrying the specimen too much, it is not the most
aesthetically pleasing example but it is, never the less, an important fossil
and the authors were able to confirm its assignation to a tyrannosaurine
tyrannosaurid. The fact that this is one of the better tyrannosaur fossils from
Kazakhstan again reinforces how poor the record is from this country and we
hope that more specimens will be discovered in due course.

So where on earth did this new specimen come from? The
documentation, such as it is, is fairly vague. It was collected in, and, I
quote “…the second half of the previous
century...” from the Zhetysu region of Eastern Kazakhstan. If correct then
this is certainly of interest since the eastern region has been considered
fairly non-productive for Cretaceous vertebrates (Averianov et al 2012) so one wonders about the
collecting locality of this specimen. The specimen itself is striking and
represents a right maxilla with its accompanying premaxillary attached and is
approximately 360mm in length albeit with about <>5% restoration . As you
can see, there are at least 12 maxillary teeth in situ and it appears that the
four premaxillary teeth are also present and correct. All the teeth are genuine
and in position as found.

The maxilla displays a gently convex anterior edge but the
posterior appears not to be as acutely convex as is the case in Zhuchengtyrannus (Hone et al 2011). The 12 maxillary alveoli is
the typical count for both Tyrannosaurus
and Tarbosaurus. The rugose surface
is also common in derived tyrannosaurids although this sculpting is more
heavily defined in mature specimens – which this does not appear to be. The subnarial foramen is readily apparent but
detail is hard to define. But then this is the real point about this specimen.
In comparison with known tyrannosaurid material from Kazakhstan this specimen
is actually quite spectacular and really important and we should all look
forward to its description.

But there is a disturbing caveat here. The only reason I am
aware of this specimen is that I was tipped off that it was going to auction
and all this “detail” I have is only because I referred to the auction website
and inspected the images. I do not intend to go into detail here but the specimen
was sold into private hands for a not inconsiderate amount of money and these
pictures I am sharing with you today may very well be the only public record of
this specimen now that it has probably disappeared forever.

Now it may be that this specimen is not from Kazakhstan at
all and when you have a specimen with so little recorded history then it is a little
bit of a punt whether the specimen appears to be what it says it is. Regardless
of this, and in the correct repository, careful research should be able to
address the taxanomic issues and, perhaps, where the fossil originated from. If
it is from Kazakhstan then it is important, important, IMPORTANT!

It does not matter what your opinion is on the buying and
selling of fossils – for there are many but one thing remains absolutely certain.
It is awful that important specimens, like this tyrannosaurid maxilla, are lost
forever in the eternal blackness that is private ownership never to see the
light of day and I wish that we could convince these people to donate these
specimens to the correct repositories so that they are available for research
and so that we can, indeed, fill in these missing gaps in our evolutionary
history.

References

Brusatte SL, Carr TD, Erickson GM, Bever GS, Norell MA
(2009). A long-snouted, multihorned tyrannosaurid from the Late Cretaceous of
Mongolia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 106(41), 17261–6.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0906911106

Brusatte SL, Carr TD, Norell MA (2012). The osteology of Alioramus, a gracile and long-snouted
tyrannosaurid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia. Bulletin of theAmerican Museum of Natural History Number 366, 197 pp., 82 figures, 11 tables Issued February 29, 2012.

Carr, T & Varricchio, D. 2014. A new species of Daspletosaurus from the Upper Two
Medicine Formation (Late Campanian, Cretaceous) of Montana and evidence for
anagenesis in tyrannosaurine evolution. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology,
SVP Program and Abstracts Book, 2014, pp103-104.

Wednesday, 31 December 2014

As 2014 draws to a close and time, as always seems to be the
case for me this year, is at a premium and I have here my first reviews of some
of the research presented at SVP in November. Normally I would have finished
with my reviews by now but, on this occasion, I will carry on processing some
posts – it is not like the research is already out of date after all.

The recent disclosure that palaeontologists were in
possession of associated remains of Spinosaurusaegyptiacus caused a worldwide
sensation when the news broke in September. A massive publicity campaign funded
by the monetary power of National
Geographic (NG) ensured maximum exposure for the authors, the accompanying
Science paper and, of course, National
Geographic themselves.

The animal is spectacular. The authors describe an almost
dragon-like aquatic predator that has a reduced sized pelvic girdle supporting hind
limbs that are drastically shortened in comparison with the standard theropod
design. There are other adaptions described such as the shape of the skull,
solid limb bones and the much discussed forelimbs which are very robust and
powerful and all of these, plus other adaptions, appear to suggest that Spinosaurus was a very adept and
powerful swimmer that preyed on the contemporary large fish of the time. Still
nobody is quite sure what the purpose of the sail/hump was.

You will also know that this research has not exactly been
universally accepted by all and that questions remain which is fair enough
since that is what science is all about. There has been plenty of discussion
about this in the Mesozoic Media so I do not really need to delve into this too
deeply and, when I had read the SVP abstract, I was keen to attend the
presentation and hopefully learn more about the animal and see what else might
be revealed in relation to the upcoming monograph – in other words, I wanted to
learn more.

However, I was bitterly disappointed since the oral
presentation turned out to be nothing more than a boys own story about how the
fossils were recovered and a broader advert for how wonderful NG was. Lead
author Nizar Ibrahim broke with SVP convention and did not stand at the lectern
presenting his research to his peers – rather he was free to walk about on the
platform talking to the audience as if he was presenting a television
programme. He was good at it mind and I imagine that the publicity machine
behind the Spinosaurus campaign was
delighted with him.

At the end of this talk, and after yet more copious thanks
to NG, Ibrahim stood there expecting, I believe, whoops of delight and
rapturous applause. However, the rather muted applause at the end of it was
indicative that most delegates felt, as I did, that we had come to find out
more about this enigmatic dinosaur and had learnt nothing – in fact there was
not a single palaeontological detail of note.

This was unfortunate. Ibrahim and his co-authors have done
(and are still doing) some sterling work in finally bringing Spinosaurus to life but the funding has
come at a price and I have severe misgivings because of the circus that
attaches itself to palaeontology when a big media operation provides the
funding. Palaeontology needs as much funding as possible and I understand that
when the opportunity arises then we need to grab it with both hands – but the
price, in terms of reputation and respectability, may prove to be expensive. I
hope that I am indeed wrong in this assertion.

On to the business in hand then. Dinosaur diversity prior to
the Cretaceous end extinction has often been debated over the years with the
more recent research appearing to confirm that dinosaurs were still
significantly diversifying albeit with a hugely reduced taxa rate. Emily
Bamforth, of the Roya Saskatchewan Museum and Hans Larsson of McGill University
in Montreal, have also been examining this, but in a much wider context, by
examining the palaeomacroecological signals in the latest Maastrichtian
Frenchman Formation in Saskatchewan, Canada.

By examining a combination of stratigraphic and palaeoclimatic data and
cross referencing with over 7800 fossils from 38 microsites the authors were
able to establish that overall taxanomic diversity, which includes the
dinosaurs, displayed no overall shift in stability although there was evidence
to suggest that some lesser groups were vulnerable and susceptible to change. Indeed,
the majority of microsites examined revealed an extraordinarily high diversity
of taxa. This adds to the hypothesis that the extinction event at the end of
the Cretaceous was very likely catastrophic or was fairly rapid to say the very
least.

In the same vein, Thomas Williamson, of the New Mexico
Museum of Natural History, and his co-authors have been looking at the
chronostratigraphy of the San Juan Basin in New Mexico with particular emphasis
on the period around the KT boundary. This area is of particular note since it
is one of the very few areas that contain the remains of animals from both
sides of the boundary – and trying to constrain the ages of the relative
formations and members has been problematic.

But by utilising a combination of magnetostratigraphy,
thermochronology and mammalian biochronology the team has been able to provide
the best date estimates yet provided. The top of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone is
certainly Paleogene and the rest of this formation is almost certainly
Paleogene too. The Naashoibito Member is confirmed as being uppermost
Cretaceous and is contemporaneous with the much better known Hell Creek
Formation.

Mammalian fossil remains prior to the extinction event
indicate that their abundance and diversity was somewhat moderate. However,
there is good evidence that life recovered incredibly quickly after what is
generally accepted to be a catastrophic extinction event and that there was a
diverse mammal fauna after only 160 thousand
years and, incredibly, that there were large mammals in excess of 100Kg in
weight after 300 thousand years.

I believe we all tend to believe that in the event of a
catastrophic extinction event, such as that at the end of the Cretaceous, that
life would take an incredibly long time to recover but we can now see that life
is incredibly resilient and can both quickly recover and proliferate. I am
still mystified, however, in what determined how certain groups of animals
survived the KT event whilst others disappeared. In any event this is very cool
radiometric dating and research and I found it of particular interest.

Limusaurus
inextricabilis is a small gracile basal ceratosaur from the Upper Jurassic
Shishugou Formation of Xinjiang in China and is perhaps known for its weird
manus which displays strong bilateral digit reduction. Josef Steigler, of the
George Washington University, and his colleagues have been delving deeper into the
implications suggested by this bizarre little creature.

They examined multiple specimens entombed in two blocks (at
least 14 articulated specimens) which represent the animal at various
ontogenetic stages including very young juveniles and this may be indicative of
parental care in Limusaurus. Having
examined the remains, which includes CT reconstruction of a very well preserved
three dimensional skull, allowed the researchers to reassess the phylogeny of
ceratosaurs and found Limusaurus to
be nested within Noasauridae.

Some of the featured anatomical details include unfused
frontals, the C10 cervical vertebra, shown as an example, has short neural
spines and is extremely elongate and the metatarsals of the pes are really
quite slender. Further phylogenetic insights suggest that Limusaurus, Elaphrosaurus, Deltadromeus and Spinostropheus are all basal noasaurids. This is not that much of a
surprise – Deltadromeus has been
recovered as a noasaurid before (Wilson et al 2003) and all of the named taxa
have generally been recovered as basal ceratosaurs anyway.

The superbly preserved megalosauroid Sciurmimus albersdoerferi, from the Upper Jurassic of Germany,
continues to fascinate and Christian Foth, of the Bayerische Staatssammlung für
Paläontologie und Geologie in Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und
Geologie in Munich, and his colleagues have been examining the specimen under
UV light using various filters to glean new insights into the integument and
feather preservation in this fascinating little theropod.

The tail feathers are best preserved and display long,
gently curved filaments. There are obvious differences in the filaments whereby
they overlap each other proximally but the distal portion remain unwrapped. The
authors are quick to point out, and correctly so in my opinion, that this
filament distortion and clumping may be due to taphonomic forces during
fossilisation.

The UV study also reveals that the tail was completely
covered in feathers. Other preserved feathers, however, consist of entirely
uniform filaments and resemble those of other dinosaurs such as Dilong and Sinosauropteryx. Other
apparent filaments on the dorsal side of the tail are interpreted as being
collagen fibres as opposed to feathers whilst others do indeed resemble
filaments similar to those found in Psittacosaurus.
In any event the authors stress that only the existence of monofilamentous
feathers is proven in this specimen – nothing else.

I do not very often discuss sharks here except to mention
their teeth that we recover in both Jurassic and Eocene deposits – sometimes
the occasional spine. But the renowned mega-shark, Carcharocles megalodon, is never mentioned here but, Discovery Channel notwithstanding,
perhaps we should because this is just about as awesome an ancient predator as
any theropod or pliosaur. Catalina Pimiento, of the Florida Museum of Natural History,
has been looking at the body size patterns and reasons for the extinction of
these giant sharks.

C. megalodon had a
rather cosmopolitan distribution and swam in the seas throughout the Miocene
and Pliocene periods before its disappearance around the Pliocene-Pleistocene
boundary. Using Optimal Linear Estimation, which enabled the author to cross
reference temporal distribution with body size estimates obtained by the
examination of fossil teeth and vertebral centra from around the world, enabled
a novel method to determine the point at which time this shark became extinct.

It appears that that the lineage leading from Otodus to C. megalodon (assuming you are a supporter of the Carcharocles lineage as opposed to a Carcharodon evolutionary line) increased
in size exponentially and maintained a pretty stable size median throughout its
existence and, as such, likely had no detrimental effect on its decline.
However, the research does confirm its disappearance across the
Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary and this ties in nicely with the disappearance,
at the same time, of smaller sized prey animals and the increase in predatory
competitors.

It is no coincidence that whales increased significantly
after the disappearance of the giant sharks and is indicative of how the disappearance
of a large apex predator can affect the balance of the ecosystem on a global scale
– something we have discussed here before when looking at the effects of
specific theropod extinctions throughout the Mesozoic. More importantly,
however, are the implications that the disappearance of a top predator can have
in modern ecosystems and it is sadly the case that it is again the shark that
is being eliminated in the seas throughout the world that will likely have
massive implications for us in the not too distant future.

Monday, 24 November 2014

Well two weeks has already passed and that is SVP over
another year and, on the face of it, it seems to have been yet another very
well received meeting. From a personal standpoint I can honestly say that I
enjoyed it again and, despite the amount of amazing and totally inspiring
research that is going on throughout the world, it is the people at SVP that
make the difference and make it such a wonderful event.

There have been several discussions regarding certain issues
raised at the meeting this year, many of which are still going on even now.
Essentially they focus on the fact that this meeting gets bigger and bigger
every year and it is hard to manage so many people efficiently – especially
when it comes to the poster sessions and the provision of both food and liquid
refreshments.

I am actually not too fussed about being in such a crowded
situation during, for example, the poster sessions since you are mixing with
essentially likeminded people who are all doing the same thing – we are all
keen to learn from each other and discuss the research presented as well as
making new friends and thus taking part in a real social event.

However, as I had alluded to in my previous post, the format
of the poster layout was certainly problematic. The vertical layout of the
poster boards themselves in tandem with the fact that they were situated on a 90°
degree angle to each other, made the sessions manic. I noted that the more
popular posters sometimes swamped the posters that were opposite to them so that
one author was particularly busy whilst the other was boxed in and often looked
uncomfortable with the situation.

And not only authors suffered as the amassed ranks of
palaeontologists attempted to look through each other and across each other to
even glimpse some of the detail presented. The format was also problematic and
some posters began at the very top of the board and travelled all the way to
the floor – I suspect neck ache became an issue for some and those people who
were not as tall as others would have struggled to see anything at all.

This was unfortunate but, as I have already pointed out,
there were no issues that I am aware of and most people made the best of it.
Indeed we, and many others, cottoned on quite early, to check out the posters
throughout the day so that you could spend time reading them properly –
especially those that you were really interested in. Certainly my habit of
marking out both oral and poster presentations well in advance in a hard copy
of the abstracts book pays dividends time and time again.

The oral presentations were par for the course although, on
a personal level, I thought that the mix of topics and/or symposia could have
been better spread throughout the four days as I found myself being really busy
for two days and fairly quiet on the others. But this is very much a personal
view and, indeed, there was only one marine reptile talk and only one
tyrannosaur-related talk as well (which was about teeth) – so not an abundance
of talks concerning my favourite beasties .

For some reason I thought there was an entire session of
talks missing as well but I was assured there was only ever three concurrent
sessions at SVP – goodness knows why I thought that then. Interestingly, however,
that too has been raised in the aftermath of this meeting – that perhaps there
should indeed be a fourth session although it was pointed out that it is hard
enough chopping and changing during the current three sessions, let alone four.
The fifteen minute time slots and no slack gives you little room to manoeuvre.

Strangely I felt that the biggest criticisms during the
meeting concerned the lack of coffee supplied during the afternoon. Sure there
is the morning break but nothing in the afternoon makes it a long session
without a coffee fix. One would imagine that it would not cost that much to
provide a secondary supply of coffee in the afternoon and it does not have to
necessitate a break such as there is in the morning. I suspect most people
would prefer to have coffee as and when during the afternoon anyway. The lunchtime
food supply did not appeal either at first as vast cues built up on the first
day but it soon settled down and I think the catering staff managed that quiet
well.

The biggest criticisms were levelled during the reception at
the Museum für Naturkunde on the first evening of the conference. I don’t
believe that there is anyone or anything to blame for the situation but the
cues for both the food and the drink were a nightmare. The sheer amount of
people made the situation impossible for all concerned and, I suspect, is the
primary driver for the current debate about the size of the conference these
days.

It was quite funny to see people eating a dessert prior to
eating something warm at the currywurst kiosk because the cue for that kiosk happened
to pass the dessert stand and they were waiting so long that they had to eat
something to keep them going! It did not help that most people were milling
about in the main dinosaur hall and many did not know that there were other
kiosks further along in another wing – a bit of signage or ushering would have
helped.

The biggest debate proliferating the boards on Twitter and
the DML concerns the ethics of live tweeting during the conference and the use
of electronic devices to surreptitiously record or photograph someone’s poster
or oral presentation. Perhaps surreptitiously is a misnomer since most of it is
actually quite blatant.

I do not intend to go into great detail on this matter
since, as I mentioned, this is an ongoing discussion on the DML and I advise
you to check out Jon Tennant’s excellent blogpost here and take the time to
wade through the comments as well which will give you an idea of the extent and
various opinions on the issue.

I believe this to be a difficult issue and nearly everyone
agrees that the society will need to clarify its rules regarding live tweeting
and social media – in fact all forms of electronic communication. But presently
we are notified that information can indeed be disseminated once the
presentation is underway so people cannot realistically be criticised now – not
as the rule currently stands.

Secondly, I believe the society has also made a rod for its
own back by releasing the abstracts to the public. When I first joined the
society, the abstracts volume/PDF was only available to members only but last
year I was amazed when the abstracts were available on an open link. Now I am a
proponent of open access as much as anyone but when the society did this then
every man and his dog was able to read the abstracts and any hope of
maintaining a reasonable embargo was gone.

I know that I actually made a couple of appeals on specific
sites to ask people to refrain from discussing the abstracts to help protect
the authors work but I knew it was to no avail and that the cat was out of the
bag. In light of this then, how realistic can it be to expect delegates of the
conference not to “live tweet” when the abstracts and the overall points of the
research have been in the public domain for weeks?

The concern over photography and/or video footage of presentations/posters
is yet another point of contention. And yet it shouldn’t be since the society
states “Still photography, video and/or
audio taping or any other electronic recording at the SVP Annual Meeting is
strictly prohibited.” And yet this rule has been quite openly and blatantly
flouted by a minority which has also encouraged others to break the rule. Of
course the biggest concern here is that research could possibly be stolen,
utilised and maybe even published before the original author(s) has hardly had
time to finish and proof read his own work.

Probably the biggest single factor here is that there is no
official (or unofficial for that matter) form of policing at the conference. I
accept that as members we should all be considered Police but nobody challenges
anybody about use of mobile phones, ipads and cameras – not once have I seen
it. I have seen the blatant use of tablet–like devices or ipads being held
aloft to take video footage of presentations as well as photographs. I have
never said anything to be honest but then nobody else has either.

And, I have to confess, that I have actually photographed a
couple of posters for my own benefit as well since I was getting frustrated at
watching others continually flouting the rule. In retrospect, this was a stupid
thing to do and is something I would not do again but demonstrates my earlier
point that unless rules are enforced then others are likely to jump on the
bandwagon.

I must emphasise that the images I took were for my benefit
only and are not, nor will they ever be, in the public domain but unless we do
something, then I am sure there is a chance that somebody’s intellectual
property may very well duplicated or plagiarised although I believe that
possibility is absolutely minimal. In general we are a pretty decent lot.

So we simply need a clarification from the society regarding
what is permissible and what is not and then we have to enforce it. Whether it is
about social media or photography there must be some form of structure that is
crystal clear and made apparent to all and maybe even a form of sanction for a
serial offender. But I genuinely hope that this never needs to happen.

So next up comes a review of some talks and posters that
caught my eye and made my ears prick up. One animal I will not be discussing,
based on my observation at SVP, is Spinosaurus
and I will reveal why next time.

Saturday, 1 November 2014

Well it is that time of year again and, despite not being
able to blog as much as I would have liked to have done, I am still delighted
to be able to attend this year’s Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s
conference. This year it is a fairly local event for me being held, as it is,
in Berlin in Germany and continues the society’s’ recent commitment to hold the
event outside of the USA every fifth year. On the first occasion (2009) it was
held in Bristol in the UK and I understand that the society was looking outside
of Europe initially for this meeting but events transpired that required it
being held in Berlin.

As usual I have been going through the abstract volume
marking out what I want to see and there are far more posters of interest this
year although there are still many oral presentations that I am keen to see. It
will be interesting to see how the vertical presentation of the posters will
affect the ability of people to see them clearly and I know that this is
causing some concern amongst a few of my colleagues but until we see how it
goes it is probably best not to be too alarmist.

Again, what stands out for me, is the degree of research
that features further progressive, and I have to say, impressive futuristic
technology that is enabling palaeontologists to be able to reveal information
that even five years ago would have been impossible to ascertain. This is an
exciting and dynamic branch of our science that shows no signs of abating and
simply by comparing research presented at last year’s conference, with what is
being presented in Berlin, highlights the relentless pace of technological
progression and enhancement that is wonderfully inevitable within this field. I
cannot wait to see what wonders will be revealed over the next ten years and
beyond.

The trip also enables me to visit the wonderfulMuseum
für Naturkunde – something I have always wanted to do but never quite got round
to doing. Although the welcome reception for the meeting will be held at the
museum on the Wednesday evening, we do intend to go to the museum on the
Tuesday for a much more laid back look at the collection and I can hardly wait
to see the fabled material from Tendaguru – one of the truly great dinosaur
bone collections in the world.Of course one of
the best things about SVP is the chance to catch up with so many friends and
colleagues from around the world and it looks like many of them are going to be
there so I am really looking forward to a great event. This enables you to be
able to network with colleagues and discuss future research and field work and
is a great opportunity for our group to continue to register its presence in
the palaeoworld.

This will be my
last SVP meeting for two years so I will not be in Dallas next year but I hope
to be back in Salt Lake City in 2016. However, the fact that I have managed to
attend the last three, including Berlin, represents a nice run and I am
constantly aware of how lucky I have been to attend these wonderful meetings –
I never take these things for granted.

And the reason for
not going to Dallas in 2015? Well next year will represent a great opportunity
for me and I am hopeful that I will be spending three weeks doing field work in
the USA which is, of course, subject to changes that can occur when these
things are first planned. But the outlook is positive and I am excited by the
prospect.

So it is my
intention to report on this year’s meeting and some of the research that will
be presented and hopefully to blog about it on my return but for now – onward to
Berlin!

Saturday, 11 October 2014

Since publishing the final instalment below I have received some rather interesting feedback from palaeontologist and colleague Dean Lomax in relation to the locality discussed in the first part of the post. Firstly let's clear up where this location is - it is indeed Kettleness, a well known fossil bearing locality on the North East Jurassic Coast that is famous for producing superb fossils of ammonites and is best known for the amount of marine reptile remains it has produced over the years.

Well it appears that the spot I reached in thirty minutes is NOT the main fossil producing spot at Kettleness. Rather it appears that you need to walk around the headland as seen in the above image and then, after a further 40 minutes walk, you will arrive at your destination. Who would have thought that? The cave and waterfall are always mentioned in relation to fossil hunting at Kettleness so it is not surprising that I made the mistake. To make me feel a little better about this, Dean also mentioned that he got caught out by this on his first visit as well.

So it appears that the information that it is a good hours walk to the fossil bearing strata was indeed correct and I apologise that I may have misled some of you with the report in my previous post. So there a few more thoughts here of which one includes the fact that, despite the revelations above, the first bay I came to is still fossiliferous and I found a few nice ammonites here so do not discount it by any means. This also means that I will now have to return at some point to check out the "true" Kettleness so that next time I can provide you with some proper information and relevant data!

Lastly, and this is by far the most important aspect here, that you appreciate that the walk from Runswick Bay to the actual fossil grounds is most assuredly an hour and ten minutes so you MUST prepare accordingly. Leave nothing to chance - check the weather forecast right up to the last moment and, of course you must know the tide times and time your visit to optimise the amount of time you have to look for fossils and still allow time to walk back before the tide returns.

I would also remind you that if you have any amount of fossils in your rucksacks that the weight will tell on your return journey and you will naturally be walking more slowly after hours of fossil hunting so you need to factor this in as well. It goes without saying that a fully charged mobile phone is essential.

So, as I mentioned previously, many thanks to Dean for putting me right and allowing me to correct those points I made in the previous post. Most of all, do not be put off and I hope some of you make the effort and visit this truly classic location for there still many fossils waiting to come to life.

Tuesday, 7 October 2014

The following morning I headed off to the final venue for
the week. By reputation it was difficult to reach and, for me, this reason
alone was why it would be worth the attempt since it would follow that those
spots that are hard to get to are probably more likely to throw up some nice
specimens. The most direct route was to scale a more or less vertical cliff
with the help of only a rope that is permanently in situ there.

Well I cannot speak for others but I actually don’t fancy
risking my neck to find a fossil. Sure, it saved time, was very direct and
dropped directly onto the fossil beds but, in my opinion, it was not worth the
risk. Trying to manoeuvre down a cliff face by using a rope that is constantly
exposed to sea salt and the elements does not imbue you with confidence. Add to
that you have at least a shoulder bag or rucksack on your back to make things
even more imbalanced as you climb down which will probably become quite heavy
with any amount of fossils you may find and make the ascent back even harder.
And if the rope breaks and the tide comes in – you are going to drown.

Having quickly decided that I was not going to do that I set
off on the reputedly long walk to the fossil grounds. I double checked the
tides and the weather and, going by the information I had researched, nothing
would be left to chance. It was a beautiful morning and I made goodtime as I
circumnavigated the main cove which was all sand and then, as I approached a
large stretch of boulder strewn coastline, I was pleased to be able to
negotiate this stretch without too much trouble.

I rounded the headland and was gobsmacked to see that I had
already reached my destination. At first I doubted myself that I could not have
possibly been able to reach this spot in such a short time – but I had. It took
me thirty minutes to get here and I could just make out the rope from the top
of the cliff coming down the face to reach the shoreline and, right in front of
me, the very well-known small cave with a delightful waterfall falling behind
it.

Just why this trip has been made out to be such a tough and
long walk to partake is anyone’s guess but perhaps it is perpetuated by
local fossil hunters to dissuade people from visiting the site. This may seem
harsh but I can think of no other reason. Thirty minutes from car park to site
walking at a reasonable rate - but not over the top. The terrain is a little
awkward in only one or two spots but the rest is easily negotiated. However, I
would reinforce that it is still essential to plan the trip knowing the tides
and weather – it is still easy to get cut off unless you take extra care and
pay attention to the time. Never take chances.

As I approached the beds I was delighted to be, yet again,
the only person around and it was such a beautiful day. The tide was going out,
the sun was pleasantly warm and there was a gentle breeze – I could not believe
my luck. I quickly found the fossil bearing spot and began to search and soon
found one or two odd bits of ammonite. This area was very similar to my other
regular haunt and was also not that big an area.

It consisted of boulders, rocks and gravel and these were
intermingled with large dislodged sections of shale that had broken off from
the wave cut platform and were slowly being eroded away by the ceaseless tides
of the North Sea. Amongst this there was a lot of seaweed that had taken hold
in the nooks and crannies and, all in all, this seemed to represent quite a
challenge to locate fossils.

I need not have worried and continued to find bits of ammonite
but I only kept a couple of fragments since I had loads from the other coastal
spots I had been frequenting. Pretty soon, however, I found my first nodule
which seemed likely to hold a reasonable ammonite and then found another one in
quick succession. As I got my eye in, the fossils came in little hot spots
where I would find two or three fairly close to each other and then nothing for
quite a while. The same issues here were the same as at the other stretches –
namely there was lots of cracked nodules where other fossil hunters had been
here before me and, again, there were a couple of nice specimens that had been
completely destroyed by reckless hammering.

As the tide moved out I checked the platform but this was
extremely difficult to walk on and there was copious amounts of seaweed in
place that covered the shales in vast swathes of green. I persevered for a
while for I knew that vertebrate fossils were not too uncommon here but I could
find only flattened ammonites and a few belemnites. Ichthyosaurs are the most
common reptiles found here and a fairly complete skull had been removed only a
few years prior.

After I gave up the search on the shales (mainly because I
did not want to slip and break something!), I returned to the foreshore and
continued the search there. The fossil bearing stretch slowly widened out and
became more difficult to search but it was apparent that it was not rich at all
and I returned to the more constrained area to look for more nodules.

Despite not being as rich as I first imagined I still
managed to find some nice pieces that are likely to yield one or two nice
specimens and I felt quite happy with my finds. I also looked further up shore
and had a tentative look in the cliff face but I could find very little. That weather
was still wonderful and I decided to call it a day and begin the walk back.
Again I reiterate that the walk is not as long or as tough as is made out by
others – just be sensible and pay attention to the tides and weather. I soon
found a pub and enjoyed the view for today was my last day in the north east
but although this week was ending, tomorrow I would be heading south to an
undisclosed and disused quarry to look in the clays of the Callovian seas.

I left the north very early and headed south down the A1.
After I has stopped for a much needed breakfast I arrived at the quarry around
nine o’clock and met up with a few colleagues from our research group to see
what we could find. Conditions were fine – blue sky, not too hot and a gentle
breeze but there had been no rain here for many a day and the terrain looked
harsh. Compared to what I had been experiencing over the last week with the
ever encroaching tides revealing new treasures each day, this looked very likely
to be a hard day. A dry arid basin swept before us with the ancient clay sea
glistening white amongst the copious amount of vegetation that was now growing
rapidly.

Add to this I knew that this venue had been visited only
recently by another group and without a change in the weather, I felt our
chances of finding things were low to say the least. As we began searching we
immediately came across a vast plain of mud cracks, many of which were already desiccating
and others were curling up and were now loose on the surface. Everything looked
grim.

We found a spot that looked like it may be promising and a
couple of us dropped down onto our hands and knees for a closer inspection of
the exposed surface. The clay looked completely bereft of fossils and I was
just about to move on when I spied a tiny black fragment pushing through the
clay. I carefully cleared the sediment from this speck of black and was amazed
to find a partial tooth from the hybodont shark Asteracanthus. Considering the conditions this was completely
unexpected.

We gradually looked around the same spot gently sifting
through the clay and were rewarded with two further partial fragments of teeth
from the same shark. Associated remains? Possibly but considering this quarry
had not been worked for some years now it is hard to be sure.

After this brief moment of interest we spread out to see
what else we could find. It had really turned out to be yet another nice day
but it was proving difficult to find anything. A lot of the old spoil now was
like concrete and had formed almost a solid crust on the surface. As you broke
into it, the old shales simply disintegrated - everything was so dusty.

Eventually, one of the crew found an unusual, what appeared
to be, compressed mollusc. We had seen these on occasion but only rarely and
the general consensus is that they are actually the compressed remains of a
nautiloid – perhaps Paracenoceras. In
any event this turned out to be quite a rare fossil and now resides in the
collections at the NHM in London.

Unfortunately this find turned out to be the exception
rather than the rule. The ever increasing amount of vegetation (you could
almost describe it as scrub) was making things really difficult and, for all
our prospecting abilities we could only muster up a couple of scrappy bits of
bone and couple of fish scales although there was one more interesting fossil
that turned up.

From L - R Two bits of bone, three fish scales with the Asteracanthus tooth above and the coprolite at the far right.

Coprolites
are extremely abundant in the Oxford Clay. Most are from fish which are small,
generally a pasty off white colour and of little interest. Large ones from
animals such as the marine reptiles are much rarer but these too, apart from
their size, are also of little consequence.

But every
now and then one turns up with inclusions which are normally representative of
the animals most recent meal – and these are very interesting indeed. They
normally show up as black and shiny against the pasty background of the
coprolite and represent various food sources that would have passed through the
food chain.

Many of
these inclusions are unrecognisable but some can be readily identified. One of
the more common elements found are the remains of belemnites and some of the
hooklets appear as pristine today as they may have been over 160 million years
ago. But, on occasion, a coprolite can reveal something extraordinary and I was
fortunate enough to find just such a fossil today.

This
coprolite reveals, remarkably, several pieces of fish bone including a perfect
little vertebra. A couple of inclusions looked like small teeth but were
revealed to be a scale and a small bone. There were other indistinguishable
inclusions as well and this coprolite is the first one of its kind that I have
found – maybe not as spectacular as big teeth or bones but no less of equal
fascination.

In the
end we decided to call it day and headed home – for me the first time I had
been home in a week. All in all it had been a great week that I had spent with
friends, both old and new, and I was very lucky with the weather which had been
very spring-like. I had also found a good quantity of ammonites in the north
east although vertebrate fossils had eluded me on this occasion but I had
managed to find a nice shark tooth and coprolite on the very last day so you
cannot complain about that.

Most of
all I loved the fact that I had begun the week searching for fossils in the Toarcian
seas of 180 million years ago and finished up looking for the creatures of the
Tethys Ocean, in sediments around 16
million years younger than where I had first started prospecting simply by
driving a few miles in my car. Ancient worlds brought to life by the tools of
the modern world.

Wednesday, 16 July 2014

The following day I decided to visit Whitby Museum and do a
little scouting ahead of the next field trips. The museum is situated quite
central in Whitby and is fairly well signposted but be aware that it is
situated at the top of Chubb Hill which, if ascending from the sea front, can
be quiet steep for those with mobility issues – or those who are just plain
unfit.

The museum charges a modest entry fee of £5 and the museum
not only caters for the fossil enthusiast but covers all aspects of Whitby’s
local history which includes whaling, the local textile and agricultural
industries, luminaries such as Captain James Cook and Dracula author Bram
Stoker as well as a comprehensive natural history collection. But I came to
look at the fossil collection and this is the first section you come to as you
walk through the doors on the left hand side.

I was initially struck by how small the display area was
considering the long history of collecting in the Whitby area and just how many
specimens of note that had been found that we, as palaeontologists, were
familiar with. But they did cram a lot of material into this area and there
were specimens everywhere, the walls and cabinets were filled and there were even
specimens tucked under the display cabinets for those of us who tend to look in
these hidden caches of small museums.

Some of the panel mounts were of particular interest and I
spent quite a bit of time with a specimen of “Teleosaurus chapmani” which is synonymouswith Steneosaurus bollensis and,
as a result, was useful for comparing anatomy with some teleosaurid material we
have been collecting elsewhere. Also
of interest was the similarly panel mounted “Plesiosaurus propinquus” which, from today’s perspective, is so
plainly a rhomaleosaurid that it is difficult to perceive it as anything else.
But then we have to remember, that at the time this was first described, there
was so much uncertainty, so many unknowns that it was clearly acceptable to
label all long necked plesiosaurians as Plesiosaurus
or similar – even if the skull was larger and much more robust than the
standard plesiosaurian model.

Ichthyosaurs are well represented in the museum and taxa
represented include Ichthyosaurus crassimanus,
I. acutirostris and I. platydon and
there are several other vertebrate specimens as well. Unfortunately, many of the older
specimens have suffered because of poor collecting methods and both primitive
and unnecessary preparation techniques. I am not criticising our collecting
forefathers you understand but merely pointing out that, by today’s standards,
many fine specimens have been compromised by these older practices.

That being said, many specimens have undergone rigorous
reconsolidation and preparation over the last twenty years or so and are in a much better condition now but
they still have to be regularly monitored since pyrite decay is a constant
threat. All in all, Whitby Museum houses a fine collection of specimens and I
would heartily recommend it to you.

I was not permitted to take photographs on this occasion but
a quick Google search will enable you to see plenty of images of the museum and
its exhibits. As an example, click here
for a quick guide.

After my visit to the museum the sun shone and I decided to
check out the quaint coastal village of Staithes, some 12 miles north of
Whitby. You have to park at the top of the village and walk down to the harbour
since there is extremely limited access but
it is also worth noting that this is also a very steep climb back – especially
if you have a sack full of fossils. Staithes is another collecting location
that is well known for its ammonites so I thought it worth checking out
although I had already been tipped off previously that it was producing very
little lately.

It was, unfortunately, high tide but I still decided to take
a look to see what I could see. As I rounded the promontory from the harbour
the tide was approaching its peak and there was very little coast for me to
walk on. But even with the limited exposure available I could still make out belemnites
and shell in the mudstones and I then decided to walk around to the other side
of the harbour and check out the sea cliffs from there.

As I walked below a noisy gull colony and made my way out on
the sea wall, the ancient sea cliffs rose in front of me. I could clearly see
the headland at Penny Nab which is where most ammonites are recovered from and,
even at high tide, it all looked rather tempting and I decided to return the
following morning to prospect. Before I left I took advantage of the Cod and
Lobster Inn, sat in the sun and sampled a fine pint of Black Sheep bitter. Life
was good.

The following day I returned all geared up for another hunt.
It was another dry day although rather murky and as I made my way down the
steep hill into this picturesque coastal village I felt pretty optimistic.
However, my optimism was soon dashed by the sight of around forty students who
were attending an organised fossil hunt. They made a fine sight all
resplendently dressed in their high visibility jackets and safety helmets as
they were preparing to skirt the headland.

Now I have nothing against this sort of event – indeed I am
very happy to support them and have done so on numerous occasions but I was
looking for a little solitude this week and decided against sharing their
excursion on this occasion. This left me in something of a quandary but rather
than waste the day I quickly headed out of Staithes and headed back to the cove
for another look but this time for a much more intense look.

I was delighted to see that, yet again, I had the cove to
myself and I soon returned to the productive spot. To be honest I was not
expecting to find too much since I had already gathered a nice collection of
specimens previously, so I made a point of searching those areas that I had
missed and even areas that I thought unproductive because they were so clearly over
exposed.

Again I was delighted to find some more ammonite specimens
throughout the entire exposure and even those spots I had considered probably
not worthy of attention produced the goods. It was another lesson learnt and
proved yet again that closer scrutiny of those spots that appear bereft of fossils
will yield results. Nobody should be surprised by this and I have seen it that time
and time again that a spot that has been searched maybe two or three times in
the space of perhaps an hour will produce a fossil as if it had just been
sitting there fully exposed to a fresh pair of eyes.

I admit to being surprised by my success considering the
finds I had already procured on the two previous occasions and, again, I
ignored many partial ammonites that I may have been tempted to pick up
previously. I then determined it was time to leave for the day for I had truly
scoured every part of this one section and, as I walked back up the cliff, I
decided to visit one more venue the following day – one that had a particular
reputation for being hard to get to but one where the rewards could be
exceptional.

Search This Blog

Saurian is.....

I am an avocational vertebrate palaeontologist with a particular interest in tyrannosaurids. Fossil preparation, conservation and research also feature high on my agenda.
Currently involved in the day to day running of a progressive and exciting research group - we are hopeful of making a positive contribution to our science.